Giuliani: Romney is Good, But He's No Giuliani (We Don't Understand It Either)

Endorsements are vital parts of a campaign's method of connecting with voters who would otherwise remain skeptical of a candidate's performance. They run as supplements to the Big Picture, stumping on behalf of a message that they believe in for the most part (search: Republican candidates' speeches about Romney before and after Romney became the dominant frontrunner).

And always make sure you put the candidate first and foremost.

The Mayor of America is an exception to the endorsement formula. On CNN's "State of the Union" this morning, Rudy Giuliani made an implication that, although Romney's record is admirable, it is nowhere near what he accomplished during his tenure as the Mayor of New York but at least better than Obama's record as President.

In other words, Romney is stuck in the void between a socialist and... a mayor?

And Giuliani's explanation for his criticism: "Well, there's a certain amount of personal ego in that." When Rudy endorsed Mitt a month ago, did he mention that he would be terrible at the job?

For comparison purposes, let's put these priorities on a scale of 0 to 10: Obama, 0; Romney, 5; Giuliani, 10. The self-boosting attack, if you could even call it that, reiterates points Giuliani made in the 2008 election, when he strutted his reign as Mayor as a talking point yet was unable to realize Florida only matters in the general election. Once again, the predecessor to Bloomberg brought out the good ol' unemployment numbers to fight his case.

Immaturity ensued.

"Maybe it was circumstances or whatever, but I had massive reduction in unemployment. He had a reduction in unemployment. He had a reduction in unemployment of about 8, 10, I think it was 15%? I had a reduction of unemployment of 50%."

Fact check: the only major drop in unemployment under Giuliani came in May 2001, when the rate fell to 5.0% from 7.5%; not exactly "half" unless you see the glass as full all the time.

And, when it comes to Romney's economic record as Governor of Massachusetts, it seems as if Giuliani can spin anything to fit a story. The unemployment rate under the Bain Capital buddy teetered back and forth while he was in office but maintained a steady decline for the most part; a factoid Giuliani cannot claim about the City, a place that happens to be completely different than an entire state. Also, keep in mind, Romney was a completely different person back then.

Now, he's predicting that, after he wins, he'll have the unemployment rate below 6% by the end of his first term.

Why cant New Yorkers elect a good mayor? Who votes for these dweezels? I always vote for the Mayor where I live, and we always have a liberal sort of mayor. I lived in New York when this guy was mayor, and it made me hate New York. He went around talking about throwing out artists and saying he didnt want anymore. Shameful mayor. In Portland Maine, we nearly had a local artist as mayor, Marshall. Imagine that compared to your right wing mayors in New York.

I'm a liberal person and I'm going to say it: Rudy was a very good mayor, in many ways. A horrible person, yes. A narcissist with an ego bigger than North America, yes. A racist with a particular animus against black and muslim people, yes. Someone who associated with very unsavory characters like Bernie Kerik, yes. An adulterer, yes.

But, as mayor he consolidated most of the positive gains that began under Dinkins without the problems, he beautified the city tremendously, he was superb on 9/11 and right after, and he was actually pretty socially liberal, and fiscally moderate.

He tried to turn himself into Mr. Family Values Republican to gain higher office, but no one bought that claptrap from "Rudia." Law and Order Republican he was. But he was 1,000 times better than Bloomberg, or that total closeted right-wing Democratic phony Ed Koch!

You make an interesting point. Why do we consistently vote Democratic in presidential elections and vote for conservatives for mayor. (It's sort of schizophrenic, don't you think?)But as for Giuliani, when will he just go away? We have his buddy in Staten Island, Guy Molinari, who still thinks he is "Mr. Big" too. The sad part is that the Wall Street thieves got away with it. (And I'm not sure either party has the guts to do anything about that.)

Meh, a few details from the second term turned me against him forever -- going against the Brooklyn Museum over a piece of art that he never even saw. Going against food trucks. Even giving out tickets for jaywalking, briefly. And really, the post-9/11 cleanup was a psychotic reaction - we have to remove this pile as fast as possible, who cares about worker safety, that's for the weak!

Plus, he alienated a lot of the guys who actually did the work for him, like Rudy Crew and Bratton.

I think there must be some heavily conservative people in the boroughs. Thinking about the different places I lived in Manhattan and outer boroughs, Forest Hills Queens, Astoria Queens for instance, there are some areas that have a heavy residential feeling with doctors named "Fuerstadt" and shit. Can be these people control most of the elections, and the liberals are merely there for the "playground" or are working 3 jobs: too busy to vote. Some cities have more of a political scene, a Green Independent Party. You are encouraged more to vote in other words.

Ive noticed just looking at the comments on Village Voice: there are none! A lot of the articles have empty comment areas, which means New Yorkers are not engaging politically in their community by commenting on their local newspaper's website. This trend probably extends to voting as well.

People like Giuliani and Bush caused the terrorists to attack in my opinion. If these officials weren't such provocateurs to begin with, we wouldn't have terrorists. And it's not just Republicans versus Democrats. Both parties are greedy. It was the Democrats who trained the Mujahideen, after all. More than one of the hijackers was actually employed by Bill Clinton to fight against Serbia, which is strange since the Serbs helped us during WW2 and aided Jews.

The two-party system is clearly the training-wheels system for Americans who cant grow-up. The two-party system, either/or system, is easier for Americans to cogitate. More parties would clearly be too much for their tiny minds. We in the USA are content to leave the training wheels on and ride around on little bikes like small children, voting for either democrat or republican.

I know the bridges, but they are still out-of-the-way of Manhattan. I don't like the politics in the Central Atlantic region. I meant that New York has a way of turning people into nobodies, deflating their drive, blocking their energy, and enslaving them. In the worst case scenerio, actually making them homeless, which is the ultimate nobodiness. I consider the minimalist art produced in Manhattan to the be a good example of the degrading of "focus" of the New Yorker. If I lived in New York, I would paint detailed, photorealistic pictures of poverty and homelessness, which would take months to paint just one image.

Staten Island has many upscale areas; particularly Todt Hill, Emerson Hill, Grymes Hill, Richmond, and now Tottenville. Also, we have four bridges, one to Brooklyn and three to New Jersey, and about 400,000 people. We are actually in the same population class as Cleveland. And, it is very conservative here. The registered Democrats outnumber the Republicans, but they vote right-wing, more often than not. As far as being a "nobody", I guess you mean something about the anonymity of being in a large crowd. Is that it?

The Seattle Stranger has a lot of commentors, that's why I thought it strange about the Voice. One theory might be that living in New York turns you into a "Nobody", so that you are no longer a person enough to comment.

Staten Island might be worth taking over by liberals. It's more secluded due to ferry-only transport. It would take a lot to make it upscale like the other buroughs.

You are right about conservatives being entrenched in certain areas of the outer boroughs, (like Staten Island where I live). This is not true about all of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and parts of Queens. Also, the north shore of Staten Island has elected a good person in Debi Rose, (Democratic councilwoman). But as far as a lack of interest in the Village Voice comment areas, I think that proves either that the makeup of the borough of Manhattan has gone upscale, or people are more interested in social networking, or they are "out-to-lunch" altogether.